-
Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time
Authors:
Molly M. King,
Carl T. Bergstrom,
Shelley J. Correll,
Jennifer Jacquet,
Jevin D. West
Abstract:
How common is self-citation in scholarly publication, and does the practice vary by gender? Using novel methods and a data set of 1.5 million research papers in the scholarly database JSTOR published between 1779 and 2011, the authors find that nearly 10 percent of references are self-citations by a paper's authors. The findings also show that between 1779 and 2011, men cited their own papers 56 p…
▽ More
How common is self-citation in scholarly publication, and does the practice vary by gender? Using novel methods and a data set of 1.5 million research papers in the scholarly database JSTOR published between 1779 and 2011, the authors find that nearly 10 percent of references are self-citations by a paper's authors. The findings also show that between 1779 and 2011, men cited their own papers 56 percent more than did women. In the last two decades of data, men self-cited 70 percent more than women. Women are also more than 10 percentage points more likely than men to not cite their own previous work at all. While these patterns could result from differences in the number of papers that men and women authors have published rather than gender-specific patterns of self-citation behavior, this gender gap in self-citation rates has remained stable over the last 50 years, despite increased representation of women in academia. The authors break down self-citation patterns by academic field and number of authors and comment on potential mechanisms behind these observations. These findings have important implications for scholarly visibility and cumulative advantage in academic careers.
△ Less
Submitted 12 December, 2017; v1 submitted 30 June, 2016;
originally announced July 2016.
-
Memory in network flows and its effects on spreading dynamics and community detection
Authors:
Martin Rosvall,
Alcides V. Esquivel,
Andrea Lancichinetti,
Jevin D. West,
Renaud Lambiotte
Abstract:
Random walks on networks is the standard tool for modelling spreading processes in social and biological systems. This first-order Markov approach is used in conventional community detection, ranking, and spreading analysis although it ignores a potentially important feature of the dynamics: where flow moves to may depend on where it comes from. Here we analyse pathways from different systems, and…
▽ More
Random walks on networks is the standard tool for modelling spreading processes in social and biological systems. This first-order Markov approach is used in conventional community detection, ranking, and spreading analysis although it ignores a potentially important feature of the dynamics: where flow moves to may depend on where it comes from. Here we analyse pathways from different systems, and while we only observe marginal consequences for disease spreading, we show that ignoring the effects of second-order Markov dynamics has important consequences for community detection, ranking, and information spreading. For example, capturing dynamics with a second-order Markov model allows us to reveal actual travel patterns in air traffic and to uncover multidisciplinary journals in scientific communication. These findings were achieved only by using more available data and making no additional assumptions, and therefore suggest that accounting for higher-order memory in network flows can help us better understand how real systems are organized and function.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2014; v1 submitted 21 May, 2013;
originally announced May 2013.
-
The role of gender in scholarly authorship
Authors:
Jevin D. West,
Jennifer Jacquet,
Molly M. King,
Shelley J. Correll,
Carl T. Bergstrom
Abstract:
Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities re- revea…
▽ More
Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities re- reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can appear in scholarly authorship.
△ Less
Submitted 7 November, 2012;
originally announced November 2012.
-
Differences in Impact Factor Across Fields and Over Time
Authors:
Benjamin M. Althouse,
Jevin D. West,
Theodore Bergstrom,
Carl T. Bergstrom
Abstract:
The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify infla…
▽ More
The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field-specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross-field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross-field differences in impact factor.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2008;
originally announced April 2008.
